I now proceed to select some specimens of the manner in which he has perverted the language of my letter, and also some specimens of the literature and logic with which his “Observations” are interspersed. Alluding to the title of my letter he asks, “What right a Dissenter has to remonstrate with the members of the church, on any steps they think proper to take _with regard to the education of the children belonging to their own communion_?” The proper answer to this question is, that I had no right at all to remonstrate on such a subject. But what will the reader think, when I tell him that _I never did remonstrate on such a subject_, and that Mr. Perowne’s apparent object in giving such a form to his question is to excite a prejudice against my Letter at the very beginning of his “Observations.” He knows that the Infant Schools, which the members of the Establishment projected, were _not_ for “the education of children belonging to their own communion,” but for “the children of persons of all denominations.” And he knows that my remonstrance was directed against those who wished to make the members of one church the Instructors of Infants, to the exclusion of the members of all other churches. The artifice which he has adopted may have answered the purpose which he had in view, but it is not the result of an upright and honourable mind, and it manifests much more of the subtilty of the serpent than of the harmlessness of the dove. Mr. Perowne, having remarked that I had advised the Establishment to act on “the principles on which the Infant Schools in Norwich have hitherto been conducted,” asks, “What are those principles?” And professing to gather his reply from my Letter, he answers, “That the Dissenters _should have the chief management of them_,” while “the members of the Established Church, afford help in directing the concerns, and in defraying the expenses.” Such “counsel,” I admit, is as impertinent as to deny to Churchmen the right “to educate the children belonging to their own communion.” But _I never gave such counsel_; and Mr. Perowne’s interpretation of my language is both unjust and absurd. The statement in my letter is this. The committees of the Infant Schools “are composed of members of the Establishment and of other Christian churches”—and, as it respects the school in St. Miles’, “repeated efforts have been made to induce members of the Established Church to afford greater help in directing its concerns, as well as in defraying its expenses.” Now mark the injustice of my commentator. In professing to quote my language, he leaves out the word “greater,” which is an important word in the sentence, and then he tells his readers that my counsel is “that the Dissenters should have _the chief_ management of the schools” about to be instituted. And now mark his reasoning. The Dissenters have made repeated efforts to induce Churchmen “to afford greater help in